tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post3592467705558930669..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Who is to blame for bogus DMCA takedowns? Not the DMCA. Not the host (well, maybe a little). Instead, shame the sender.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-35933601586159785462014-08-22T09:19:05.882-07:002014-08-22T09:19:05.882-07:00Actually DMCA is partly responsible. Without the l...Actually DMCA is partly responsible. Without the law, bogus claims are wholly ignored. Because of the DMCA law, ISPs have only two choices, a) take down immediately, or b) risk liablility. It is now easy to issue a bogus claim. Thanks to the DMCA, anyone can under 5 mins if you have a simple template. It is easy to make up and send a bogus claim and expect the ISP to take immediate action because they have a limited choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-44094183850492110372009-04-27T10:08:00.000-07:002009-04-27T10:08:00.000-07:00"The volume of user-posted material is simply too ..."The volume of user-posted material is simply too great to permit human pre-review..."<br /><br />I don't agree with this statement. In fact, I strongly disagree with it. If YouTube does too much business for its staff to keep up, then they're doing too much business. The fact that compliance with the law is difficult does not absolve one of a responsibility to comply.<br /><br />And, for that matter, if your argument is that YouTube can't police the content it provides, then why isn't "Option 1" the correct answer after all? <br /><br />In a way, YT's "safe harbor, service provider" defense only works if YT does no review of any kind at all! Once they start offering opinions on the content, then they're admitting that they do have SOME degree of involvement in the process--that there's at least some point at which a person could look at the video and flip a "go/no-go" switch. Once that happens, then they're accepting liability for all the rest of that content; they're admitting that they COULD look, they just CHOOSE not to. And that is not a sustainable defense.<br /><br />It's like those people who say "you can post whatever you want and we aren't responsible but we'll still delete stuff we don't like". No. You can't have it both ways; either you have review authority (and therefore responsibility), or you're just a pipe through which the content flows (and have neither responsibility nor authority.)halojones-fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473935330204075559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-73414532082567944822009-04-22T07:50:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:50:00.000-07:00To anonymous 1:16:
You write: "The notice-and-tak...To anonymous 1:16:<br /><br />You write: "The notice-and-takedown system isn't what causes bogus notices, but it turns a bogus notice into a bogus takedown."<br /><br />My point is that some sort of notice-and-takedown system probably would have evolved (through court decisions) even if the DMCA had never been enacted. And the DMCA's system (though imperfect) does have huge benefits, by enabling copyright owners to address the vast number of infringements on UGC sites.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-81785854469324026082009-04-22T07:19:00.000-07:002009-04-22T07:19:00.000-07:00The DMCA takedown notice is only usable with matte...The DMCA takedown notice is only usable with matter that may infringe a copyright, which is a topic that the one posting the material and YouTube may not know much about. It's sort of like yelling out a math problem, no one may yell back a real answer.<br />The DMCA pretty much cut the heart our of the exclusive right of distribution, where so much copyrighted material is re-distributed online.<br />The CDA exemption enables the host to avoid liability if they have procedures to police the 'decency' of the material on their site. But, most hosts do little to enforce their own terms of use policies. The post rules, but leave those to an 'honor system' to be enforced. Anyway, in this day and age, what standard of 'decency' prevails on the internet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-41905384478332073582009-04-22T01:16:00.000-07:002009-04-22T01:16:00.000-07:00Isn't part of the problem the notice-and-takedown ...Isn't part of the problem the notice-and-takedown system? In the "Canadian DMCA," Bill C-61 attempted a notice-and-notice system instead. The notice-and-takedown system isn't what <EM>causes</EM> bogus notices, but it turns a bogus notice into a bogus takedown.<br /><br />Isn't that the fault of the statute?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com